A. SUNDARAMBAL V. GOVERNMENT OF GOA, DAMAN AND DIU & ORS.

AIR 1988 SC 1700

[Sen, A.P. , Eradi V. Balakrishna, JJ]
The appellant was a school teacher and her services were terminated by the Management. She
made several efforts in getting the order of termination cancelled but without success.
Ultimately she raised an industrial dispute before the Conciliation officer under the Act. The
conciliation proceedings failed and the conciliation officer reported accordingly to the
Government. The Government considered the question of referring the matter for
adjudication under section 10 of the Act But on reaching the conclusion that the appellant
was not a 'workman' as defined in the Act. it declined to make a reference.
The appellant filed a writ petition before the High Court for issue of. a Writ of Mandamus
requiring the Government to make a reference under section 10(1)(c) of the Act to a Labour
Court to determine the validity of the termination of her services. The High Court dismissed
the petition holding that the appellant was not a workman. This appeal by special leave is
against the Judgment of the High Court.
Whether workman?
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by VENKATARAMIAH, J.:
[]
Two questions arise for consideration in this case; (1) whether the school, in which the
appellant was working, was an industry, and (2) whether the appellant was a 'workman'
employed in that industry. It is, however, not disputed that if the appellant was not a
'workman' no reference under section 10(1)(c) of the Act could be sought.
[]
Thus it is seen that even though an educational institution has to be treated as an industry in
view of the decision in the Bangalore Water Supply & Sewerage Board, etc. v. R. Rajappa &
others, (supra) the question whether teachers in an educational institution can be considered
as workmen still remains to be decided.
Section 2(s) of the Act defines 'workman' thus: "2(s). 'workman' means any person (including
an apprentice) employed in any industry to do any skilled or unskilled manual, supervisory,
technical or clerical work for hire or reward, whether the terms of employment be expressed
or implied, and for the purposes of any proceeding under this Act in relation to an industrial
dispute, includes any such person who has been dismissed, discharged or retrenched in
connection with, or as a consequence of, that dispute, or whose dismissal, discharge or
retrenchment has led to that dispute, but does not include any such person

(i) who is subject to the Army Act, 1950 (46 of 1940), or the Air Force Act, 1950 (45 of
1950), or the Navy (Discipline) Act, 1934 (34 of 1934); or
(ii) who is employed in the police service or as an officer or other employee of a prison; or
(iii) who is employed mainly in managerial or administrative capacity; or
(iv) who, being employed in a supervisory capacity, draws wages exceeding five hundred
rupees per mensem or exercises, either by the nature of the duties attached to the office or by
reason of the powers vested in him, functions mainly of a managerial nature."
In order to be a workman, a person should be one who satisfies the following conditions: (i)
he should be a person employed in an industry for hire or reward; (ii) he should be engaged in
skilled or unskilled manual, supervisory, technical or clerical work; and (iii) he should not be
a person falling under any of the four clauses, i.e., (i) to (iv) mentioned in the definition of
'workman' in section 2(s) of the Act. (THE SECTION 2(6) AT THE TIME OF THIS CASE
WAS NOT THE WAY IT PRESETNLY IS. EARLIER IT WAS SKILLED OR UNSKILLED
MANUAL WORK. NOW ALL THE THREE HAVE BEEN MADE INDEPENDENT)
The definition also provides that a workman employed in an industry to do any skilled or
unskilled manual, supervisory, technical or clerical work for hire or reward includes any such
person who has been dismissed, discharged or retrenched in connection with, or as a
consequence of, an industrial dispute, or whose dismissal, discharge or retrenchment has led
to that dispute.
We are concerned in this case primarily with the meaning of the words 'skilled or unskilled
manual, supervisory, technical or clerical work'. If an employee in an industry is not a person
engaged in doing work falling in any of these categories, he would not be a workman at all
even though he is employed in an industry. The question for consideration before us is
whether a teacher in a school falls under any of the four categories, namely, a person doing
any skilled or unskilled manual work, supervisory work, technical work or clerical work. If
he does not satisfy any one of the above descriptions he would not be workman even though
he is an employee of an industry as settled by this Court in May and Baker (India) Ltd. v.
Their Workmen., [1961] (II) L.L.J. 94.
[]
It is no doubt true that after the events leading to the above decision took place section 2(s) of
the Act was amended by including persons doing technical work as well as supervisory work.
The question for consideration is whether even after the inclusion of the above two classes of
employees in the definition of the expression 'workman' in the Act a teacher in a school can
be called a workman.
We are of the view that the teachers employed by educational institutions whether the said
institutions are imparting primary, secondary, graduate or post graduate education cannot be
called as 'workmen' within the meaning of section 2(s) of the Act. Imparting of education

which is the main function of teachers cannot be considered as skilled or unskilled manual
work or supervisory work or technical work or clerical work. Imparting of education is in the
nature of a mission or a noble vocation. A teacher educates children, he moulds their
character, builds up their personality and makes them fit to become responsible citizens.
Children grow under the care of teachers. The clerical work, if any they may do, is only
incidental to their principal work of teaching. We agree with the reasons given by the High
Court for taking the view that teachers cannot be treated as 'workmen' as defined under the
Act. It is not possible to accept the suggestion that having regard to the object of the Act, all
employees in an industry except those falling under the four exceptions (i) to (iv) in section
2(s) of the Act should be treated as workmen. The acceptance of this argument will render the
words 'to do any skilled or unskilled manual, supervisory, technical or clerical work'
meaningless. A liberal construction as suggested would have been possible only in the
absence of these words. The decision in May and Baker (India) Ltd. v. Their Workmen,
(supra) precludes us from taking such a view. We, therefore, hold that the High Court was
right in holding that the appellant was not a 'workman' though the school was an industry in
view of the definition of 'workman' as it now stands.
We may at this stage observe that teachers as a class cannot be denied the benefits of social
justice. We are aware of the several methods adopted by unscrupulous managements to
exploit them by imposing on them unjust conditions of service. In order to do justice to them
it is necessary to provide for an appropriate machinery so that teachers may secure what is
rightly due to them. In a number of States in India laws have been passed for enquiring into
the validity of illegal and unjust terminations of services of teachers by providing for
appointment of judicial tribunals to decide such cases. We are told that in the State of Goa
there is no such Act in force. If it is so, it is time that the State of Goa takes necessary steps to
bring into force an appropriate legislation providing for adjudication of disputes between
teachers and the Managements of the educational institutions. We hope that this lacuna in the
legislative area will be filled up soon. This appeal, however, fails and it is dismissed.
[]
G.N. Appeal dismissed.

Note: This was a case before the amendment in the definition of workmen took place.
Therefore, they concentrated on clerical since at that time there was skilled or unskilled
manual work as the other characteristic along with supervisory (which teaching certainly is
not). Now we have skilled work as a separate category. The question is whether now after the
amendment, the Sundrambal case would hold good?
Now, since there is specialised knowledge required for teaching, therefore it is possible that
teaching be regarded as skilled workmen.

The recent trend though is that Sundrambal is being considered as binding and no court has
considered this fact that the judgment took place before the amendment.